Govt's obligation?

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by billwald:
What is the govt's obligation to pay to keep people alive?

Is the govt obligated to keep people alive as long as it is technically possible?

Is it the govt's obligation to pay for every new drug even though a generic may be 90% as effective?

These are not questions of moral rights and wrongs. They're questions of what we decide the government should be doing at any given point with any given issue, and these are likely to change over time. </font>[/QUOTE]Personally, I would much, much rather that the church take over providing for the sick and the poor rather than the government. How many people here think that's even a remote possibility. The reality is there are 40 million Americans without health insurance. The economy seems to be coming back somewhat but there are areas in the country and segments of the economy that are only getting worse. For instance, I just lost my job with AT&T after being with them for 29 years. Five years ago they stopped providing health insurance for retirees for new hires. Lucent is 20% of the size it was when it broke off AT&T in 1997. What used to be a secure, stable business, the telephone business, is now in a depression. Because of a technicality from the AT&T Divestiture I won't receive medical coverage from them. I'm a Deacon, choir member and Sunday School teacher in the FBC.

My brother is a SBC minister for a poor urban church in Ky. They can't afford to pay him a living wage let alone provide health insurance. This year he had to have a serious coronary operation which cost about $75K. Then he had to have eye surgery for a detached retina. He didn't regain some of the sight in his right eye because it wasn't caught in time. In other words, he hadn't been to an eye doctor in a while.

Between us we have 4 Masters degrees and we have worked all our life. We're both faithful Christians.

This is the story of just two of the increasing number of Americans who won't have medical coverage. And you say this isn't a moral issue? Maybe the government should just line us up and shoot us.

 

[Johnv]

S&N, it seems whenever churches provide as you suggest, they get booed by other churches for being works based, for not preaching the gospel, for rewarding sinners for sin, and the whole lot of nonsense. Believe me, I've been the recipient of this firsthand. I'm heavily involved with Habitat for Humanity. HfH is a Christ-centered organization that builds houses for the needy. For my involvement with them, I've been called a social liberal, an ecuminist, a false gospel enabler, and the list goes on... and that's just from people on this board.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by Johnv:
S&N, it seems whenever churches provide as you suggest, they get booed by other churches for being works based, for not preaching the gospel, for rewarding sinners for sin, and the whole lot of nonsense. Believe me, I've been the recipient of this firsthand. I'm heavily involved with Habitat for Humanity. HfH is a Christ-centered organization that builds houses for the needy. For my involvement with them, I've been called a social liberal, an ecuminist, a false gospel enabler, and the list goes on... and that's just from people on this board.

My belief is that this whole thing about "Grace only" and minimizing the importance of acting like Christ is going to send a lot of professing christians straight to HELL. I understand that you're not taking that position but think about what you said. Christians should not be Christ-like.

Mat 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me.
Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

 

[Johnv]

I couldn't agree with you more. There are way too many Christians yelling at the football field instead of serving on the battlefield.

I'd much rather serve with my hands and be wrong, than sit on my butt and be right.

 

[LadyEagle]

SaN, I'm sad for what happened to you and your brother.

There have been times when we have been without health insurance and it is really a scary thing. I don't know what to say, because whatever I say may sound quaint, and I don't mean to come off that way. Is there any help for your brother's hospital bills? Hill-Burton Act is something the hospitals do to write off bills that people can't pay, for one thing.

I don't know what else to say except you and your brother and families will be in my prayers.

 

[KenH]

Health care is a difficult issue but it would be a bad idea to turn our health care over to the government. If the government(taxpayers) are paying the bills, then the government gets to call the shots. And we saw how "successful" that was in the old Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact nations.

 

[Matt Black]

There's a world of difference between the NHS in the UK and the socialist systems of the former Eastern Bloc. True, the government gets to call the shots to a certain extent, but that's kind of why we have governments. In the UK, we the taxpayers as the gvt's paymasters get to throw them out at least once every five years if we feel they're making the pips squeak too much - a right that was denied the people of Eastern Europe for over 40 years.

NCT, thanks for your testimony. I suppose my supplementary question arising thereon is this: what does one do in the US after 6 months once the UB runs out and you still haven't got a job (let's say because of a nationwide recession) - how do you live?

In the UK we have kind of a similar system in that UB (called Jobseeker's Allowance here and only £40-something a week compared to your c.£100 a week last time I looked) only lasts 6 months too. BUT, and here is perhaps the big difference, after that you are classified as long-term unemployed and can be eligible for another welfare benefit called Income Support which potentially lasts indefinitely. We also have a similar 'poverty trap' problem for those trying to go back to work, but that is ameliorated somewhat by having a sliding scale of benefit reduction as you go back to work and earn more - there are additional payments you are eligible for if you are on a low income and/ or have a family to support. By and large, that particular aspect of our welfare state works well - no-one is destitute, those on low or no incomes are looked after, and benefits are coupled to a demand that one reports to the Job Centre as being able and willing to work and do pretty much any job that is offered.


The real problem of abuse in our welfare state is the so-called long term sick: if you are able to get a certificate from your doctor that you are physically or mentally unfit to work, you can receive Incapacity Benefit, which is more generous than JS or IS and which, if your doc signs you off repeatedly, you can claim more or less indefinitely. The number of iB claims has rocketed over the last ten years; there are of course the genuinely disabled in there somewhere but I suspect that the majority of cases now are fraudulent now. Family doctors are being asked by the gvt to be more 'robust' now in who and how they certify, but it's a big problem and no-one's sure how to resolve it properly without penalising the genuinely ill and infirm

Yours in Christ

Matt

[ November 17, 2004, 05:32 AM: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Matt:

While there are differences in our systems there are a lot of similarities as well. In case of nationwide recession the government has acted to extend benefits in the past. Also, even when it is good for only 6 months it is good for 6 months per year. So if you were still out of work after a year you could reapply and receive benefits again.

We also have some special rules tied to the NAFTA treaty. If you can document that you lost your job due to manufacturing moving out of the country you can get extra benefits under NAFTA. This extends the unemployment benefit for a full two years, and it pays for tuition for school during those two years so you can train for another job. We had layoffs this year at the mill I work at now and they all qualified under this. Two years of paid college while you collect unemployment is a pretty good deal.

We have a disability payment that is administered by social security that sounds a lot like your incapacity benefit. It is ripe for fraud as people collecting disability may actually be working on the side. There is always a lot of opportunity for fraud in programs like this. When I was on unemployment I met this guy at the unemployment office who told me he was collecting unemployment benefits in three different states simultaneously (and working as well). These people are thieves stealing from the public at large. Yet somehow they don't see themselves as such.

 

[Matt Black]

Benefit fraud due to people actually working whilst on benefit is much less of a problem here now than it used to be due to two things:-

1. The benefit fraud squads are much better-resourced and catch many more people

2. Those they catch end up with pretty stiff jail sentences as a rule 'pour encourager les autres', so fewer people are tempted to cheat the system

The real problem, as I've said, is the many on Incapacity Benefit who shouldn't be and who do no work at all.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by JesusandGeorge04:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Who funds the government? Are the tax payers "obligated" to pay for someone else's medicine?

why not? It is of the common good; healthy people are better citizens, usually.
</font>[/QUOTE] Please cite your proof that health is related to good citizenship.

I would argue that poor citizenship may lead to poor health because of ethics and morals... but not the reverse.

"why not?" Because it isn't your money... nor those who think others should pay to supply them with "free" goodies out of the public treasury.

Stealing is stealing even if 51% of voters think it is a good thing to do. Wealth redistribution is legalized theft. It is the manifestation of mob rule that Jefferson feared and warned about. It violates the rights of a minority to benefit a majority.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
The more meaningful question is why people are going to the government rather than the church for this kind of help.

Because perhaps the churches cannot hold this sort of systemic burden? Never have, although many have tried. </font>[/QUOTE]Not true. Churches at one time provided basic education for almost everyone. Between churches and families, the poor were cared for to include their medical needs.

Ours would be a much better, united nation if we were more interdependent with our neighbors and less dependent on some distant bureaucratic central government.

Cradle to grave welfare comes at a price of cradle to grave control (read slavery). Price too high.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Scott J.

Cradle to grave welfare comes at a price of cradle to grave control (read slavery). Price too high.

Are Britains slaves to their government cause I think we have a sense that the government is some way off controlling us.

I would argue that poor citizenship may lead to poor health because of ethics and morals... but not the reverse.

Does it matter? Sickness is sickness. Poverty is poverty. We were all sick before Jesus healed us. He chose those poor and neglected even as that neglect was of their own making. Where's compassion here?
Calvinist: It is God that made them like that. Are you going to stand by while He does that to people?
Arminian: God allowed them people to get like that and did not lift a finger to help them. Are you so much like your Father?

Cradle to grave welfare comes at a price of cradle to grave control (read slavery). Price too high.

It is obvious you do not understand our social security system and what it stands for. It is class struggle at it's finest.
It was created so that we would not have to go to our betters and beg. That was the slavery. If they ever decide to take it away we will fight them for it and we will win it and they might go the way the French monarchs went.

It's freedom from fear to a degree. A safety net and anyone can use it. What have we got but God gave it to us. He can also take it away. Worse He could do is to leave us in it. ISA 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.
Then you are confidant that you do not need man's help or God's indulgence?

Because it isn't your money...

It's God's. You do not claim ownership do you?

Wealth redistribution is legalized theft.

Please cite your proof that this is scripture.

johnp.

 

[JesusandGeorge04]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Please cite your proof that health is related to good citizenship. I would argue that poor citizenship may lead to poor health because of ethics and morals... but not the reverse.

Why not? A person who is healthy and feels that their country/countrymen care(s) for their well being is more motivated to care about the country! Those that have enough aren't as harried in trying to survive, and thus have the time and resources necessary to participate not only in our electoral process, but motivated on the business front as well! We all equally fall under sin, which causes the seperation we feel from God and others... the rich are not any less sinful than the poor, and from scripture it can be said that they are in far more danger through their arrogance; to connect sin with material wealth in the way you describe is a Dark Path, methinks.

Please reconsider!

"why not?" Because it isn't your money... nor those who think others should pay to supply them with "free" goodies out of the public treasury.

Money is a state-supported construct; to get money requires the use of public infrastructure, the likes of which are used more by the rich than the poor who have little access. And note that 'public' means just that... it's all of ours.

Stealing is stealing even if 51% of voters think it is a good thing to do. Wealth redistribution is legalized theft. It is the manifestation of mob rule that Jefferson feared and warned about. It violates the rights of a minority to benefit a majority.

Jefferson warned against income disparities, and in several letters mentioned putting caps on wealth, and barring the formation of corporations! That's what he feared... and 'all-for-yourself' mentality... such as yours.

Please reconsider...

Not true. Churches at one time provided basic education for almost everyone. Between churches and families, the poor were cared for to include their medical needs.

I'm sorry, but this just isn't true. Our schools were in the hands of the church once, but the church used it as a vehicle of obedience and little else. Medical care was sporadic and of poor quality... only when public institutions were instituted were diseases wiped out on a public scale, and ALL children educated in a well-rounded fashion.

Ours would be a much better, united nation if we were more interdependent with our neighbors and less dependent on some distant bureaucratic central government.

There is no 'united' in any of this 'fend for yourself' mentality; the government, properly run by the people (a hard requirement, with such rich campaign donors) is the hand of the public, for the public good... not an enemy!

Cradle to grave welfare comes at a price of cradle to grave control (read slavery). Price too high.

You have not shown this 'control' (especially in a well-contructed system), and to those who starve in our society...

The price is right.

Please reconsider the Word of Christ on these matters! Would you like me to pray for you?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by johnp.:
Hello Scott J.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I would argue that poor citizenship may lead to poor health because of ethics and morals... but not the reverse.

Does it matter?</font>[/QUOTE] Yes. It does matter very much. A gov't handout is done without discrimination and without correction. Charity selects those who are truly needy and seeks to help correct the behavior that caused their need.

Sickness is sickness. Poverty is poverty. We were all sick before Jesus healed us. He chose those poor and neglected even as that neglect was of their own making. Where's compassion here?

See what I wrote above. Jesus didn't institute an earthly government that would go out and to the work of loving our neighbors. When gov't issues entitlements to "the poor", the are interferring with the mission that Christ gave His followers... to love as He loved. He fed people... without gov't. He healed people... without gov't. Government programs put trust in the arm of man. Jeremiah pronounces a curse against those who do this.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Cradle to grave welfare comes at a price of cradle to grave control (read slavery). Price too high.

It is obvious you do not understand our social security system and what it stands for. It is class struggle at it's finest.</font>[/QUOTE] Actually I do understand. Class struggles are based on envy vs selfishness. Neither side is innocent.

The rich have been blessed and should be generous to the poor. The poor are not entitled by any means to help themselves to wealth that doesn't belong to them.

The interesting thing is that those you would consider to be in lower classes aren't poor at all based on world and historical standards. In fact, they are quite rich... how many "common" people do you know who give as much of their wealth to releave the suffering of the truly poor in the world?

Most likely, the folks who you would like to reward with goodies paid for by the rich are just as selfish as the rich they condemn.

It was created so that we would not have to go to our betters and beg.

And begging is better than stealing in what way?

That was the slavery.

Nope. Asking for something you need may or may not involve repayment but free men can do this. However when one becomes dependent on another for their welfare and accept the notion that the product of their own labors as well as those of their fellows belong to that power- they are then enslaved. The definition of a slave is not so narrow as being restricted in travel, lifestyle, or even property ownership. A slave is one whose labor as a resource belongs to someone else.

If they ever decide to take it away we will fight them for it and we will win it and they might go the way the French monarchs went.

So in other words if you are ever denied the benefits of wealth you didn't earn, you are going to attack those who did earn it?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Wealth redistribution is legalized theft.

Please cite your proof that this is scripture.

johnp. </font>[/QUOTE]These parables have meaning beyond the stories themselves. However, it is noteworthy that Jesus recognized the right of property owners to their property and of the wealthy to their own wealth.

I am not aware of a single scripture that encourages people to rise up and take wealth away from others because they wanted something they couldn't afford.

Mat 21:33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.
37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

Mat 20:9 "When those hired about the eleventh hour came, each one received a denarius.
10 "When those hired first came, they thought that they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius.
11 "When they received it, they grumbled at the landowner,
12 saying, 'These last men have worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the scorching heat of the day.'
13 "But he answered and said to one of them, ' Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius?
14 'Take what is yours and go, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you.
15 'Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?'

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by JesusandGeorge04:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Please cite your proof that health is related to good citizenship. I would argue that poor citizenship may lead to poor health because of ethics and morals... but not the reverse.

Why not? A person who is healthy and feels that their country/countrymen care(s) for their well being is more motivated to care about the country! </font>[/QUOTE] That simply isn't true. If you want proof, take a survey of current recipients of entitlements like food stamps or welfare. You will find that far from being appreciative, they blame "government" for not giving them more for nothing- for not solving their problems completely.

the rich are not any less sinful than the poor, and from scripture it can be said that they are in far more danger through their arrogance;

As are the slothful, envious, and immoral.

to connect sin with material wealth in the way you describe is a Dark Path, methinks.

Please reconsider!

I never said that the poor were sinful and the wealthy were righteous. I said that the condition of many poor people has alot to do with sin and sinful attitudes toward work and personal responsibility. That is simply a fact.

I grew up in the southern Appalachians. I have heard people say "I won't take that job... I can make more off welfare." And they did... for as long as I knew them.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
"why not?" Because it isn't your money... nor those who think others should pay to supply them with "free" goodies out of the public treasury.

Money is a state-supported construct;</font>[/QUOTE] No it isn't. Money is a symbol of the transference of wealth. Wealth either belongs to sovereign individuals or it belongs to a slave master.

to get money requires the use of public infrastructure,

Not always. But this does go to the heart of why "common welfare" items like roads and police depts. should be paid for... by indirect taxes such as a sales tax.

the likes of which are used more by the rich than the poor who have little access.

Not in proportion to what they return to the welfare of the country.

And note that 'public' means just that... it's all of ours.

Wealth is not public. It is private. If we own our own labor as property then we are free. If government or any other entity owns our labor as property then we are slaves.

and 'all-for-yourself' mentality... such as yours.

You have no basis for this self righteous charge. Just because I don't believe government should care for the poor doesn't mean that I don't think they should be cared for. Just because I strongly oppose the confiscation of "real" rights in exchange for government sponsored privileges doesn't mean I despise the poor. Simply because I see the fallacy of government's enabling and perpetuation of behavior that impoverishes people, does not mean that I do not want to see those people helped.

Please reconsider...

It is you that needs to reconsider and take a long hard look at reality. Great Society programs have hurt more people than they have helped. Poverty has not ended. Hopelessness is worse. Illegitimacy is up. Crime in the poorest communities continued to climb until some of those programs began to be reigned in.

You don't teach someone that they are entitled to something for nothing without doing damage to their conscience. We are now working on 6th and 7th generations in the trapped by gov't entitlements who have this notion completely seared on the minds and hearts.

Our schools were in the hands of the church once, but the church used it as a vehicle of obedience and little else.

Read what de Toqueville said. He marvelled that almost everyone he met in 1830's America was literate and had basic math skills while most education was performed by the clergy. This was an astonishing level of mass education for that time.

Medical care was sporadic and of poor quality...

Only because of technology. What care there was- was widely available to those in need. BTW, we have much greater individual wealth with which to help our neighbors now than they did then. The problem is that many expect government to be charitable for us... with other people's money of course.

only when public institutions were instituted were diseases wiped out on a public scale, and ALL children educated in a well-rounded fashion.

Simply, false.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Ours would be a much better, united nation if we were more interdependent with our neighbors and less dependent on some distant bureaucratic central government.

There is no 'united' in any of this 'fend for yourself' mentality;</font>[/QUOTE] Your problem is that your liberalism blinds you to any other view. I probably care as much for those in need as you do. I simply reject the notion that growing gov't and confiscating the wealth of the producers is the best way to help those who need it. Further, I don't think there is anything loving about enabling someone who is in self-destruction/oppression.

the government, properly run by the people (a hard requirement, with such rich campaign donors) is the hand of the public, for the public good... not an enemy!

No nation in history has empowered its government and remained free.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Cradle to grave welfare comes at a price of cradle to grave control (read slavery). Price too high.

You have not shown this 'control' (especially in a well-contructed system),</font>[/QUOTE] Really? If government wants to change behavior, what does it do? It regulates and taxes. Consider tobacco, home ownership, gas taxes, etc. Did you read that the IRS advised churches that they could not legally pray in their assemblies for Bush to win? Why, because if they did they would lose their tax exempt status.

There are many ways that gov't controls our lives in a very subtle way.

and to those who starve in our society...

Tell me where are there masses of starving people in America. If you know where they are, why haven't you helped them?

[/quote][/qb]Please reconsider the Word of Christ on these matters! Would you like me to pray for you? [/QB][/QUOTE] I am. Christ commanded His followers to care for the poor and needy. If we do what He said, we can trust Him for the resources. I am not as generous as I should be by any stretch but Christ never said that charity should be an impersonal function of a secular government. He said it should be a loving act by one person to another.

Yes. I can always use prayer. But if you are going to pray that I become a believer in big government and socialism then please don't.

These debates don't always express someone's heart in a matter. I don't disagree with you on helping those in need. I disagree that it is a legitimate function of government in a free society that respects the rights of individuals.

BTW, I will pray for you as well.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Scott J.

See what I wrote above. Jesus didn't institute an earthly government that would go out and to the work of loving our neighbors. When gov't issues entitlements to "the poor", the are interferring with the mission that Christ gave His followers... to love as He loved. He fed people... without gov't. He healed people... without gov't. Government programs put trust in the arm of man. Jeremiah pronounces a curse against those who do this.

That, if you don't mind me saying so, surprises me.

Jesus didn't institute an earthly government that would go out and to the work of loving our neighbors. Earthly governments are made up of people. You try to give the impression of the government being not people. A thing.

When gov't issues entitlements to "the poor", the are interferring with the mission that Christ gave His followers... to love as He loved. Because if the government is not made of people your argument might have some merit. I don't think so though because if we could invent a machine that fed and clothed the poor then Jesus would not complain I'm sure. Is this where our participation and care ends with those less blessed? If it is then at least live up to it.
When my father's generation came back from fighting for their country they swept away the old order of begging for scraps. Bowing the head. If they were good enough to die for their country then they thought the working man should expect to be treated humanely and without charity if the need arose. Social security is not charity. It is our right. The idea was and stays just to powerful to require violence. Protect it we will though.

He fed people... without gov't. He healed people... without gov't. When was God not Gov't then? So you obey Him by standing on His command to do good by refusing to establish the idea that all men have a right to help without shame and chance appearing? Some soft shoe shuffle there.

Government programs put trust in the arm of man. Jeremiah pronounces a curse against those who do this. You say that to yourself next time you need medicine. You trust men. You trust men to care about their neighbour? You trust Christians to what? Who said social security has anything to do with trust? It is the opposite. It is because we can't trust such generous people like you and me. We must keep the begging away from generous people because only generous people give, until they stop. We do not rely on generosity but the force of law. From the cradle to the grave we are protected by law.

Government programs put trust in the arm of man. You can't trust God either. He brings famine. Joseph learnt this to his honour. Are we to use God given resources to ease poverty or say, "God bless you brother I hope God helps you out?" (You are not pulling my leg are you?)

Yes. It does matter very much. A gov't handout is done without discrimination and without correction. Charity selects those who are truly needy and seeks to help correct the behavior that caused their need.

So your complaint is about scroungers or maladministration?
MT 19:21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
As Matt said earlier, the situation here is that it is difficult and dangerous to use fraud these days down at the Dole office.
The idea that a sick man must pay $75,000 for an operation in a self proclaimed Christian nation shocks me. But I grew up in a Welfare State created by Socialists and Conservatives. What a blessing that has been though many do not realise that here.

Actually I do understand. Class struggles are based on envy vs selfishness. Neither side is innocent.

Who cares less about 'innocence'. Innocence has nothing to do with anything we do. We are sinners. How can you believe a nation is only good for the blessed ones? How much do you save on the sweat of a Coolie or a Mexican? I am not saying there should not be inequalities in society but I am saying that the better off are only better off because there is cheap labour below their stations. They need protection. The state is there to protect them. Your country tries against a storm to live up to their office.
(And begging is better than stealing in what way?) You mean that the other way round? It is not theft but loving your neighbour as you love yourself. You feed yourself, you dress yourself and keep yourself warm? Who do you argue with now? If a people can come together and vote for this system as a people, a community, then that is what Democracy is all about is it not? The majority says how it is going to be. How can that be theft? You are Democratic I assume? If a nation can come together as a nation in obedience to a command of God how can that be wrong?

So in other words if you are ever denied the benefits of wealth you didn't earn, you are going to attack those who did earn it?

(I wouldn't call it wealth exactly.) Who did not earn it? The poor make the rich. It's their sweat and blood that is used to gain. The cheaper and sweatier the better. Your type is what we are beating here. We will get them off their horses this week, killing stags and foxes with dogs will be no more soon. A fox hunting ban! That is the class war. Their types were off raping and pillaging societies that could not defend themselves, using us to do their dirty work while back in merry old England our brothers were being hung for stealing sheep to feed themselves.
Too flipping right we ain't innocent. But we never took their heads. We had breeding we did. We are putting them in their place alongside us and not over us. Deference has gone. I saw it leaving. It went from 'they know best to 'I'll do it my way'. Humanity took a step forward when it took the oppotunity to help the poor as a society. A gift from God. A command from Him too.

These parables have meaning beyond the stories themselves. However, it is noteworthy that Jesus recognized the right of property owners to their property and of the wealthy to their own wealth.

That is a strange couple of passages to support your theory that Jesus supports you and your notion of love!
Are you comparing man's right and God's right and declaring that you have as much right to your property as He has to His?
You actually use the salvation message to bolster your position for Mammon.
We don't own anything but what we have we have as an indulgence from the Owner. Your wealth is yours, that is not what class struggle entails. It has to do with keeping body and soul together. If the fat man on the hill can sit down to dinner then so should the poor sod at the bottom of the hill. That is disputed? I am alarmed.

I am not aware of a single scripture that encourages people to rise up and take wealth away from others because they wanted something they couldn't afford.

Like food? MT 25:37. Like drink? MT 25:37. Like warmth and shelter? MT 25:38. Like free hospital treatment? MT 25:39? Close enough. Now you must prove that your largesse is more efficient than a nationally governed system ensuring complete cover.
I know that Jesus said that we would always have the poor with us but He never said the destitute, the starving and the homeless did He?

What's this $57,000 operation bill? That's not slavery? They won't cover sick people will they? Only your heathly are allowed to pay through the nose? You should let the poorer members of society contribute to help you pay for your health care. We do.

Wealth redistribution is legalized theft.

Please try again to cite a proof that this is scripture.

johnp.

 

[Matt Black]

Hi Scott

I'm no good at this multiple-quote thingy, so my comments on your post appear in italics below.

Originally posted by Scott J:

A gov't handout is done without discrimination and without correction. Charity selects those who are truly needy and seeks to help correct the behavior that caused their need.


Er....no; a charity selects those recipients it deems worthy to receive according to the aims and objects of that charity; thus it is both discriminatory and haphazard in its approach to the relief of poverty

Jesus didn't institute an earthly government that would go out and to the work of loving our neighbors. When gov't issues entitlements to "the poor", the are interferring with the mission that Christ gave His followers... to love as He loved. He fed people... without gov't. He healed people... without gov't.

Two points: both Jesus and Paul worked within the government restraints of the day, not 'without government'; Jesus even going so far as to exhort the payment of what his followers considered an iniquitous tax. Secondly, we have the old bleat of "if the government didn't do so much, I and my church would do more". This argument is disingenuous. There is absolutely no reason why the two methods of poverty relief - private and public - should not co-exist and complement each other; in the UK it is in now ay an 'either/or' situation.

Wealth redistribution is legalized theft

Theft by definition is illegal; therefore you cannot have 'legalised theft'. If a law is passed by the duly-constituted legislature of a country, whether that be Parliament or Congress, then it is law and Rom 13:1ff requires us as Christians to regard it as such. If you and others don't like it, it is for you and others to campaign and vote for candidates who will change that law. In a democracy, unpopular laws will ultimately be repealed. Until then, either get with it or move to another country that is in keeping more with your economic and political philosophy, but you have no warrant to hint that the law is unlawful - that is prohibited by Scripture.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by johnp.:
That, if you don't mind me saying so, surprises me.

Jesus didn't institute an earthly government that would go out and to the work of loving our neighbors. Earthly governments are made up of people. You try to give the impression of the government being not people. A thing.

Earthly governments are most generally human systems commonly known in the scripture as "the world". People are instruments of God.

Christ used the example of the Good Samaritan. it wasn't a government that he praised for having a program to go help robbery victims on the Jericho highway, though undoubtedly the Romans had patrols financed by public taxes. His praise went to one individual who gave sacrificially of his own substance to help someone in need.

When gov't issues entitlements to "the poor", the are interferring with the mission that Christ gave His followers... to love as He loved. Because if the government is not made of people your argument might have some merit.

It does have merit. The government is not made up of a bunch of people operating out of their own generous good will. It is made up of people employed by a system that are for the most part dispassionate about their function. They certainly aren't characterized by sacrificially giving of their own wealth. They distribute the wealth of others.

I don't think so though because if we could invent a machine that fed and clothed the poor then Jesus would not complain I'm sure.

I think He would. He never taught utilitarianism. He fed and healed as He taught them the gospel. On one occasion He even rebuked the masses for following Him since they weren't there to hear and follow the truth but rather to be fed for free.

Is this where our participation and care ends with those less blessed? If it is then at least live up to it.

It is perhaps not meaningful to you but the "red" states and counties in America gave a larger percentage to charity than the "blue". The "blue" states are actually wealthier per capita than the "red".

Further, the bureaucracy paid to redistribute income is very expensive. As of a few years ago, less than $.50 on the dollar actually went to the beneficiary of the social program. If I am not mistaken, the US Gov't requires that charitable organizations have operating expenses of less than 20% of their receipts. In other words, 30% more money would go to helping the poor in America right off the top if those dollars went to private rather than public organizations. Moreover, private charities are far more effective in helping people overcome their conditions than government entitlements.

Social security is not charity. It is our right. The idea was and stays just to powerful to require violence. Protect it we will though.

I don't know exactly what is meant by "social security" in England but if you are referring to the welfare state then you are wrong. Nothing will ever give you a "right" to something that someone else legitimately earned... and that you have not earned.

He fed people... without gov't. He healed people... without gov't. When was God not Gov't then?

God is not human government. But more importantly for this particular discussion, human government is not God with the legitimate power to extend and suspend rights... with the ability to say that those who produce are subject to the arbitrary confiscation of their earned wealth.

So you obey Him by standing on His command to do good by refusing to establish the idea that all men have a right to help without shame and chance appearing?

No. I obey Him by recognizing that He ordained all genuine "rights of men", that it pleases Him when those rights are respected, and that "to help the poor" is not a legitimate cause for violating those rights.

The poor can and should be helped- but out of charity and kindness, not entitlement. This is the model presented in scripture.

Government programs put trust in the arm of man. Jeremiah pronounces a curse against those who do this. You say that to yourself next time you need medicine. You trust men.

I purchase the medicine with the product of my own work.

You trust men to care about their neighbour?

No. I trust God to honor and bless those who do what He commands.

Who said social security has anything to do with trust? It is the opposite. It is because we can't trust such generous people like you and me.

So instead, we empower government to steal the wealth, not of people like you and me, but of "the rich". Wrong. Stealing is a sin just as sure as selfishness and a lack of compassion for those in need it.

We must keep the begging away from generous people because only generous people give, until they stop.

Why would you beg? Why would you not do as the scripture teaches and provide for yourself by your own labors? If you are in some way disabled then the scripture could not be more clear that your church is responsible to care for you.

BTW, you should not make assumptions about my generosity- nor that of Americans with a disdain for the welfare state. We give more to charity than anyone in the world.

We do not rely on generosity but the force of law. From the cradle to the grave we are protected by law.

That doesn't change the fact that your system benefits one group by taking by force the wealth of another. Theft by proxy.

Government programs put trust in the arm of man. You can't trust God either. He brings famine. Joseph learnt this to his honour.

I will trust Him though He slay me... Job.

Are we to use God given resources to ease poverty

Yes. The resources God gives US, not others. We are responsible for what God blesses US with... not what He providentially gives to the "rich".

or say, "God bless you brother I hope God helps you out?" (You are not pulling my leg are you?)

Burn your straw man. Disagreeing with the welfare state does not make someone callous nor indifferent to the needy.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Matt Black:


Er....no; a charity selects those recipients it deems worthy to receive according to the aims and objects of that charity; thus it is both discriminatory and haphazard in its approach to the relief of poverty

The fact that they are discriminatory is exactly what makes them superior. I have a sister-in-law that is physically able to work. Instead, she is scamming the system... in fact, she is also scamming my mother-in-law and anyone else she can get over on.

She is drawing a disability from our Social Security Trust Fund for being bi-polar. This diagnosis was made during a period when she was simultaneously abusing pre-scription and illegal drugs with alcohol.

Government is enabling her self destructive behavior and giving her a basis for rationalizing it. This is not loving. This is not charity. It is one of the most cruel things you can do to a person.

Two points: both Jesus and Paul worked within the government restraints of the day, not 'without government';

You are dodging. Neither of them ever exhorted Christians to look to government as a force for good or for accomplishing Christ's commands for anything... to include charity.

Jesus even going so far as to exhort the payment of what his followers considered an iniquitous tax.

Read it again. He exhorted them to render unto Caesar the things that belonged to Caesar... He left those who would trick Him in the position of declaring what belonged to Caesar and what did not. He snared them in the trap they had set for Him.

BTW, I am not saying that there are no common welfare/defense things that all citizens should join to pay for. I am saying that the arbitrary redistribution of wealth from an individual that earned it to an individual who did not is neither moral nor practical considering human nature.

Secondly, we have the old bleat of "if the government didn't do so much, I and my church would do more". This argument is disingenuous.

Maybe, maybe not. If our leaders in the US were really concerned about solving poverty, they would give a tax credit for all taxes up to say $20K that went to charities that house, cloth, feed, and train the poor.

The only problem with that solution is that it takes power away from politicians. They can't get credit nor exercise control.

However, you point is well taken. Most Americans and Brits as well have no excuse for not personally doing more to help those in need... regardless of what government does.

In fact, I think it would be great if we all followed the commands of Christ to help the poor one on one in spite of the government. In time, we might even save their victims err... wards from them.

There is absolutely no reason why the two methods of poverty relief - private and public - should not co-exist and complement each other; in the UK it is in now ay an 'either/or' situation.

Yes there is. It is immoral to take property from someone without their consent to benefit someone who has not earned it. This is a fairly simple concept. If I hire you to forcibly take money from someone to provide me with medical insurance, it is no different than my taking it myself.

Wealth redistribution is legalized theft

Theft by definition is illegal; therefore you cannot have 'legalised theft'.

Making something legal, does not make it moral. This is a distinction you should be able to discern.

If a law is passed by the duly-constituted legislature of a country, whether that be Parliament or Congress, then it is law and Rom 13:1ff requires us as Christians to regard it as such.

No it doesn't. I have a duty to oppose that which is not right... as Peter said, should we obey God or man... I have available to me the means of doing that through political action and free speech. I am under no obligation to simply accept the dictates of government.

Until then, either get with it or move to another country that is in keeping more with your economic and political philosophy, but you have no warrant to hint that the law is unlawful - that is prohibited by Scripture.

Yes. I have every warrant and duty to condemn laws that are immoral. I am not involved in an armed rebellion or anything of the sort. But I will do all in my power to overturn a system that violates the rights of those who are compelled to finance it while also enslaving those who are the supposed beneficiaries.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Scott J.

Burn your straw man. Disagreeing with the welfare state does not make someone callous nor indifferent to the needy.

In fact a welfare state can make you callous and indifferent. It becomes someone else's problem.
What a welfare state does is guarantee that benefits are paid to those who need it. It covers everyone. Good will does not cover everyone. Therefore disagreeing with a welfare state is indifference and a lack of care.

Charity organisations exist. You speak of them. They manage do they? We have organisations for specific groups funded in various ways, local councils, government and from collections taken.
You see we have the organisations as well as the state benefit service. We are rich we should spread it around.

Christ used the example of the Good Samaritan. it wasn't a government that he praised for having a program to go help robbery victims on the Jericho highway, though undoubtedly the Romans had patrols financed by public taxes.

His conduct was praise worthy. So was the bloke's action that called an ambulance for me after I was knocked over by a truck when I was a kid. I was taken to hospital in an ambulance, paid for by all, treated by doctors and nurses, paid for by all, and sent home after my parents had been informed and came to collect me. If I had needed to stay in hospital, paid for by all, or have an operation then the man that called the ambulance had no need to promise to pay anything, he had already contributed for my treatment. Nor did my parents, they also had contributed. They were among the many that swept away the old order. How can there be an objection to this? Help at the point of need.
No one is asked to prove they have contributed towards the health service if they need medical assistance. It's free at the point of delivery.

His praise went to one individual who gave sacrificially of his own substance to help someone in need.

How could Jesus praise something that did not exist?

I have to go to housegroup so I'll leave it here. I hope we can continue to discuss this later.

johnp.

 

[TC]

In this discussion, some have continually painted the poor as lazy, slothful losers that want something for nothing. Yet, not one has condemned corporate welfare. Large companies recieve millions from the governmment - more than any individual could receive in 10,000 lifetimes. Where is the outcry against this. Why should my tax dollars go to a large company so they can have a better profit margin? Fix this problem first, and then we can look at addressing the other.